So, equal protection. Yes, I do believe there is a point in law that should be followed regarding abortion, for everyone – viability.
Viability is a term that has no permanent definition. It is not determined by ethics but on the technological ability of a culture. This means that as technology advances and the means to support life outside the womb improve, the point of viability will become earlier and earlier, eventually meaning that abortion, at any stage after conception, could conceivable be made illegal.
You're also implying that it's acceptable to destroy a life in a primitive or technological inferior culture or period, where the most advanced medical advancements aren't available, but not in more advanced cultures.
There should never be allowed partial birth abortions, late 2nd or 3rd term abortions, unless the mother is provably at risk. And if the baby can be saved, every effort should be made to save the child.
First, which is it, late 2nd or 3rd? There have been several 22 week pregnancies that have been successful, so the viability argument now includes the 2nd trimester you've just reference.
You just made a little caveat there, "the mother is provably at risk." What does that mean? What constitutes "risk". At a glance, a reasonable person would see this and assume that you mean the physical health of the mother. That delivering a baby would result in serious physical damage, considerably more intense and severe than would be expected in a regular or cesarean birth. Is that what you mean? Or are you including emotional distress or other exceptions as well?
Also- so you've now imposed arbitrary restrictions on abortion. Why is it acceptable to limit abortion at the 2nd or 3rd trimester, but not at any other time? How is a decision like that achieved? Doesn't this restriction contradict your laisez faire, 'hand of my body" approach to the subject.
However, my faith, my self, knows that life starts much, much earlier than that.
Within the context of the discussion- THIS is the relevant point.
Until you participated, everyone appeared to be making a concerted effort to NOT make this a policy discussion.
That is a faith based opinion though, not good science, and one that I know is protected within the 1st amendment.
You think there's a first amendment right to killing or ending innocent life on the basis of convenience? Ethics aren't necessarily religion. And religion and values are expected to shape policy, particularly on issues like this.
I will not force my faith onto anyone else. I will not tell any other mother that they are “killing a baby” if they terminate theirs after the point that I know life begins. It saddens me, but just as I expect that same protection under the 1st amendment, I will allow it to others. I believe that God does entrust mothers.
Because the life is the property of the mother?
Because a life isn't entitled to any of the constitutional protections that you'll likely argue everyone is entitled to?
If you are being honest, and you honestly believe that a human being is being destroyed- especially when you note the BRUTAL methods in which a fetus is destroyed- then you're position is inconsistent.
I will not judge them, it is between them and God. Not between them and the law of the United States.
So should we leave the prosecution of all crimes up to God?
Should there be any laws in place the protect the individual?
However, and I have stated this before Cal, the abortion question must play a factor in some way with dealing with the ‘when does life begin’ question. Especially if you are involving the government in any way. When anything is decided, regarding any question, all of the ramifications should be taken into account.
So you're saying that we should seek a false answer to a difficult question inorder to appease abortion advocates?
If you want to advocate something, or the right to do so, you have to be willing to honestly discuss and recognize what you are doing. If you want to embrace policies that legalize the destruction of something, you need to be able to at least honestly discuss what it is you are going to destroy.
You're saying that truth should be shaped in order to defend YOUR political position. That we should lie in order to achieve and defend the social goal of abortion advocates.
ANOTHER example of the institutional method of dishonesty that is at the foundation of the American left.
"We can't honestly discuss what is being abortion because the conclusion hurts our cause["/I]. So, instead of calling it what it is, we'll just reduce it to an inanimate object...that's much easier to destroy.
Especially when making law. If the government gets into this area, declaring when ‘life begins’ then, they will also be the arbitrator and enforcer, and will have to deal with the consequences.
This is amazing- you are the champion of big government.
You put faith in the federal government, you support the shift of power and responsibility to the government. You are happy to rely on the junk law decision of Roe V. Wade. But now you don't want a democratic approach to determining the societal standards of life and restrictions upon abortion.
In this case, for example if law creates life at conception, then appropriate measures must be taken.
You're going into the realm of the hypothetic.
IF that law were created.... The reality is that if Roe V Wade were overturned, you WOULD NOT end up with an abortion policy in this country that was so radical and polarizing. You'd ultimately end up with some kind of compromise. The vast majority of Americans WANT to see less abortions. They want more restrictions. But a sufficient number of women have been tricked into thinking that this is an all-or-nothing issue.
There will be the problems regarding the inevitability of back alley abortions, the large influx of unwanted babies, the immense strain on the public health system. Are exceptions allowed when the mother is at risk, for provable rape or violent crime. These decisions cannot be made in a bubble.
If it comes up for discussion, you can certainly make your various inconsistent, contradictory arguments, including the genocide for convenience one, at that time.
And I still don’t know why you keep bringing up Singer – I know very little about him, and really don’t feel comfortable taking him or you on regarding his ideas. I have only read small pieces by him, or about him, which probably aren’t representative of his real opinions.
The discussion isn't about Singer, I was using him as an example,and applying them to what you said. I provided enough of an example for you to respond to.
I'll repeat, and I'll omit any reference to Singer-
Some people will argue that a mother should be able to terminate the life after it has been born, either because the child has a disability or due to the convenience or greater good of society and the mother. They completely accepts that the fetus is alive, but that greater good needs to be achieved. If you think that definition of a fetus/embryo/baby is defined by the mother- that the definition is determined by opinion and the woman's circumstance, is that opinion wrong? And until when should a mother have the right to terminate the offspring? If you also believe that the fetus has life, and that the mother has the right to arbitrarily decide when the life can life, how do argue otherwise.
Also- you keep bring up the "first amendment" yet you never address the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection, that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." How can one being be considered life in one womb and protected by the constitution, while another one, solely on the whim of the mother, is able to have it's body ripped apart by a vacuum with a sharp edge on it?
